Saturday, December 27, 2025

Doctors strikes and their Moral Responsibility- ND Amerasekera

Doctors strikes and their moral responsibility

Dr Nihal D Amerasekera

Industrial action is when workers collectively refuse or reduce their work due to a dispute. It is often organised by a trade union when negotiations have failed. Common forms of industrial action include strikes and picketing


The British Medical Association is the doctors' trade union in Britain. Recently, the organisation has marshalled the junior doctors (now called resident doctors) to a series of strikes. This has seriously affected patient care in hospitals and has damaged the esteem and goodwill the patients have for the profession. The long-running dispute of the junior/resident doctors with the government started in March 2023. The BMA argues that resident doctors' pay is 20% lower in real terms than it was in 2008, even after the 2025 increase. There have been 14 strikes since, causing immense disruption to healthcare in the NHS. The government says resident doctors have received the largest pay rises of any public sector employees over the last three years - totalling nearly 30% - and insists the government won't offer any further increases.


The beginning of industrial action goes way back into the 17th centuryThen the workers faced appalling working conditions and dangerously long hours. They earned such low wages. There were many accidents in the workplace due to the lack of safety regulations. In Britain, the Trade Union Act of 1871 legalised trade unions, giving workers a legal way to protect and advance their rights. This led to an increase in industrial activity which in turn improved the lives of workers. Workers strikes had the propensity to damage the economy of the country and cause hardship to the public.


The National Health Service was established in 1948 by Aneurin Bevan providing comprehensive medical care free at the point of use, funded through general taxation. An association for doctors was formed in 1832, and it was called the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association. In 1856, this organisation changed its name to the British Medical Association. For many years, as a profession doctors never struck work. The first doctors strike took place in 1975. Firstly, it was the consultants who went on strike to retain the privilege of private practice. Later that same year, the Junior doctors went on strike, wanting payment for their on-call duties. These instances of strikes have been notable for their scale and impact. They represent the largest and the most disruptive action seen in the 75-year-history of the NHS.


The Hippocratic Oath is aoath of medical ethics historically taken by physicians. It pledges to uphold professional standards, to help the sick, do no harm, and maintain patient confidentiality.


The original oath is often revised for modern useThe core principles of the oath still continue to guide the medical professionThe Declaration of Geneva was created by the World Medical Association in 1948.


World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva - 1948

The Physician’s Pledge


AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.


Wherever I have worked I have seen the dedication of the doctors to patient well-being. They work long and unpredictable hours providing a selfless service. This often involves personal sacrifice. Money is a vital component of modern life. It provides security and stability, social inclusion and a better quality of life. We all want more of it and there are times we all feel that way. It is the responsibility of the government to pay the doctors adequately for the important work they do. The public too has a responsibility to force governments to provide adequate remuneration for the doctors for their work.

The medical profession is more than just a job. We all have an important duty of care to our patients. As doctors, we must not forget the core principles of our profession. The World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva (1948) is a useful reminder to all doctors of their responsibilities.


In the UK, pay review bodies are independent, non-departmental public bodies that advise governments on public sector pay. Their function is to gather evidence from various sources, such as government departments, unions, and employers, to provide independent, evidence-based recommendations on pay and working conditions. This advice helps the government set public sector pay levels that aim to attract, retain, and motivate staff. Governments are not legally bound by the recommendations. These review bodies sit annually to advise governments. Hence, the doctors' pay is reviewed every year and is adjusted when necessary. The British Medical Association has a significant input into the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.


Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 allowed universities to charge tuition fees from students. Currently it is £925annually. When the cost of food and lodging is included, it adds an extra £10000. Hence the medical students when they complete their course could have a debt of £100,000. I hope the BMA and the Review Body take this into consideration when doing the pay review. I wish the BMA would do a deal with the government to waive the university tuition fees if medical students sign a contract to work for the government for 5 years after they qualify.


In the UK, doctors provide an excellent service, often beyond the call of dutyIt must be said that those in the medical profession are under greater pressure than ever before. Their workload is increasing exponentially, and their work is more closely scrutinised. This adds to the stress in the workplace. We live in a litigious world and legal action against doctors is much more common nowHere, too, we assume that the review body is aware of these issues.


Strikes by doctors lead to the cancellation of appointments and postponement of elective surgery and other procedures. These cause significant delays and distress to patients. Depending on the cover provided by the striking doctors, the emergency and urgent care services will be restricted and there will always be inevitable unacceptable delays. Strikes disrupt the overall efficiency of the NHS, leading to longer waiting times and a higher risk of patient deterioration. Cancer diagnosis and treatment gets delayed. There is also a huge physical and emotional impact on the staff that work during the strike providing coverThe total impact on the NHS is huge.


While many organisations can strike, professions in the armed forces, police, and prison services are legally banned from striking. These are deemed as essential services and strikes by them would seriously disrupt and endanger life. Frontline medical services too are essential and will endanger life if withdrawn. I do not see why doctors are allowed to strike when the other essential services aren’t. 

As a medical professional who has worked in the health service both in Sri Lanka and the UK for 50 years, feel strongly that doctors should not strike. There are adequate safeguards to keep their pay in line with the rest of the public sector. The British Medical Association should be negotiating with the government about pay and conditions, retaining their respect as a body that is committed to providing a good service to the public. The leader of the Conservative Party has said she would ban doctors from taking industrial action. It is indeed my personal view too that the medical profession provides an essential service and should not be allowed to strike.

16 comments:

  1. Nihal
    You are a great writer. You have gone through alot of research, how the the British health service functions, how the BMA works and and about Industrial action.
    Though I have worked in UK for three years and three months when I went there for my Postgraduate studies and again for six months in 1986, 1992 and 1998 I was not aware of all this information. I must admit that I was educated with so much knowledge.
    Chira

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Nihal , A great, comprehensive document. I applaud your time, effort and the focused attention into the depths of the issues and where remedies could lie . I shall return ! Thank you -

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nihal, I really enjoyed reading your well researched article. I am proud to say that I have never been on strike. Doctor's strikes were quite frequent in Sri Lanka in the past, but not so now. Sometimes there are local strikes confined to a single hospital. Even when there are national strikes, ICUs, Children's and Maternity services are excluded. In the 1970s, during a particular strike, the internes were also pulled out; I volunteered to do an internes work, by attending to new admissions and been first on call. In the past when there had been threats of strikes by the GMOA, the government had intervened by making it an essential service, thereby aborting it.
    You had mentioned about the Hippocratic Oath; although it is in in the medical curriculum, it is not taken by anyone. I think it should be made mandatory, prior to the commencement of the internship.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Chira, Rohini and Sanath
    My grateful thanks to you all for taking the trouble to read through a long document and comment during this busy Christmas season.
    As an senior citizen I am now at the receiving end of healthcare. Now I sit on the opposite side of the table at consultation. I know how hard it hits when healthcare is withdrawn, procedures are postponed and surgery is cancelled. Service provided by doctors is essential and strikes can seriously damage patients health and even lead to deaths. I hope governments will take action and ban doctors from striking. It is important that the government has a regulated system to pay the doctors adequately and provide good conditions at work. I am all for the new and revised OATH to be mandatory for all doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nihal, you have given us a lot to think about, and you have provided a clear background on industrial action in the UK by doctors.

    Strike action by its very nature and intention is meant to be disruptive and damaging; if it did not do so, there is little point in striking. It is in the end a "game" played by the employees and employers where each expects to be the winner and if not the winner, to come away with minimum loss. The game begins with threats by the employees of what might happen if demands are not met, and threats by the employers of not yielding to threats, with emphasis on the damage to innocents and damage to reputation. Both sides want to win with as much gain and as little loss as possible. The Public prepares to suffer and will have mixed feelings on the justification of strike action and on what the employers could have done to prevent a strike for “legitimate” reasons as some see it and others though not regarding as “legitimate” will find fault with the employers for letting it progress (or regress!) to this stage.

    I say all this because a lot of discussion happens before a strike, and there is always room for a sensible compromise, in most cases.

    In the case of Doctors, we are in a difficult position because the reluctance to strike is often used by the Employer as a weapon to deny recognition of justifiable claims by the Doctors. In the same manner, doctors who by a vast majority like to behave in an ethical and moral manner, are left with a very difficult choice.

    I have never taken industrial action, and although I cannot say with hand on heart I never will (or would have), I know that the tipping point (as there always is one) can be at various levels and might determine my final decision (after going through the motions of proper negotiation, appeal to reason etc). Just as a hypothetical example (remember it is hypothetical!), if a clause is introduced that only a person born in the UK can work in the NHS and all the efforts of the BMA to get a negotiated settlement fails and the BMA calls for strike action, I might join.

    The point of my example is that we all have “tipping points” and although the strong desire and commitment that as a responsible doctor, you should NEVER strike, the numbers on either side of the Red line will depend on where the Red line is placed. I agree with Nihal’s statement “As a medical professional who has worked in the health service both in Sri Lanka and the UK for 50 years, I feel strongly that doctors should not strike.” But as always in ethical decisions, the context is of prime importance. I have no hesitation in saying that “Doctors must do everything possible to NOT resort to Industrial action, even if it means going through some hardship and difficult times, and leave no stone unturned before that final act, an act which a well-informed Public will most likely sympathise with if the Doctors cause is perceived by the majority of the Public as justified and also that they tried all avenues to avoid strike action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mahen
      Your stance on doctors’ strikes leaving the door open for strikes surprises me. Your choice is completely out of character as you are one of the kindest and the most caring persons I know. Is it right to withdraw healthcare? I think not.
      Is it right to hurt patients even if negotiations fail? Governments have to run the country and deal with all its workers fairly. Doctors are never a special case for preferential treatment. If money is their sole concern they have chosen the wrong profession.

      Delete
  6. The purpose of a doctors strike is to achieve their goals when negotiations have failed. During the strike healthcare stops causing tremendous hardship to some of the most vulnerable in society, those who are sick and suffering. Cancelling surgery and appointments with doctors can seriously and adversely affect patients and their health. For whatever reason, putting patients’ lives at risk should be completely against the professional ethics of a doctor.
    The armed forces and the police are banned from strikes as they safeguard lives. Doctors should be banned from strikes as they put lives at risk.
    There must be an independent review body to adjust the pay and conditions of doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nihal, thank you for your remarks on me as a person. I think you didn't quite catch my point. I don't condone the present strike action by junior doctors at all. I tried to put forward a general philosophical point about morality. I am a moral relativist. I am posting a something about this point of view. I hope you understand my stance better. I am not expecting you to agree but just think of how we can look at moral problems. Moral absolutism claims universal, unchanging moral rules apply to everyone, everywhere (e.g., "killing is always wrong"), while moral relativism asserts morality is context-dependent, varying by culture, time, or individual (e.g., "stealing to feed starving children might be right"), rejecting universal standards. Absolutism sees right/wrong as fixed, like math, whereas relativism sees it as fluid, shaped by perspective or society.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In summary, strike action can ONLY be justified in extreme circumstances and what is extreme is of course debatable. I don't like to use the term NEVER in general

    ReplyDelete
  9. MAHENDRA GONSALKORALEDecember 31, 2025 at 3:23 AM

    I favor moral relativism. To me context is vital in making judgements on actions performed by us humans. It is a bit like a judge taking into account extenuating circumstances. That’s why I don’t consider strike action as ALWAYS wrong. The hypothetical scenario I gave is for me a justifiable reason for strike action. ( needless to say, it must be backed up by a log of all reasonable actions tried before deciding on strike action. The public must see the demon as not the doctor but the Authority)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Withdrawing treatment to patients must be a very emotive subject. Compassion, sympathy and humanity are valued in every religion and philosophy. It is assumed those in the medical profession value those traits and tenets and respect them all through their careers. To abandon those valued principles for money or any other reason seem to me shocking and contemptible.
    Medicine is a vocation – not just a job.
    The Conservative party in the UK will legislate to stop doctors from taking widespread strike action – like police officers and soldiers. I will indeed support them.
    Hippocrates was a Greek physician and philosopher. He is considered as the father of modern medicine. The Hippocratic oath stands true today as it did all those years ago. He would turn in his grave if he knows that doctors as a group now withdraw treatment from patients.
    This will remain my personal view on doctors strikes

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nihal, thank you for attempting to enlighten people like me about the doctors' strike in the UK. I don't know enough about all the issues to make an intelligent comment. I get the feeling (and I may be wrong) that this is not like a strike in any other industry. When employees of a company like Jaguar or Rolls Royce go on strike, the entire company shuts down and production ceases.
    You indicated that there are people still working in spite of the strike. It seems to me that the hospitals are keeping emergency and essential services going, and that it is mostly the elective procedures that are affected. The hospitals are still open, aren't they? I don't believe that these doctors or the BMA made the decision to strike without prior serious consideration. Perhaps that was the only way to get the Administrators of the NHS to listen to them. This is also a way of making the public aware of the plight of doctors. It is definitely inconveniencing the general public, but that is one way of getting the message across. I also suspect that it is not simply about money, probably also about long hours and working conditions. (I will have to read more about what led to the decision to "strike.")
    One more question; what is the pay scale of NHS administrators, and how does it compare with the salaries of the resident doctors?

    ReplyDelete
  12. https://bbc.com/news/articles/cn0qyl4ljjko
    This link helps to explain the events that led to this walkout by resident doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello Srianee
    The BMA held a ballot and 87% of Junior doctors wanted to strike. The Consultants did not strike. The hospitals remained opened but many patient appointments and surgical procedures were cancelled as the senior doctors could not manage without help from juniors.
    More than the numbers and the statistics the concept of doctors to strike and not see any patients at all is totally wrong. Cancer diagnoses and treatments are delayed. Many urgent surgical procedures are rebooked and postponed. The waiting lists for whats called non-urgent work in hospital are astronomically at present. These are delayed further. The knock on effect of strikes are unacceptable. It is the patients who suffer and not the government or managers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nihal, Did the BMA try hard enough to negotiate with the government? It appears that the government was not budging. This appears to be a last resort action. I agree with you that doctors should not take this kind of action, but perhaps in this situation they had no choice. (I'm sitting on the fence, aren't I?)

    ReplyDelete
  15. The main difference of opinion between Nihal and me is probably not a difference at all!
    I, like Nihal, do not favour strike action by Doctors, as it is against our basic moral principles. Harming patients is so wrong. I certainly do not favour taking strike action to improve pay and conditions of service.
    Where I differ from Nihal is that I contest the statement "NEVER STRIKE," as there may be rare circumstances where it could be justified, where it could be demonstrated that the benefits massively outweigh the harm, short and long term.
    Nihal and I will need to beg to differ on this very fine detail.

    Just to reiterate that I am very much a Moral relativist and do not favour moral absolutism as it fails to take into account circumstances such as Social climate, individual circumstances of the offender, all of which I label as "context". In general, bipolar thinking is not practical or desirable.

    ReplyDelete